Appeal No. 95-2937
Application 29/057,491
Appellant’s ornamental design is disclosed to be for use with flower vases or the
like. Figure 4 shows the claimed design atop a flower vase, and supporting a flower
through its opening. The vase and the flower are shown in phantom in Figure 4 to indicate
that they are for illustrative purposes only and form no part of the claimed design.2
The single reference of record relied upon by the examiner in support of a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is:
Dusseault 2,834,461 May 13, 1958
The Rejection
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
3
Dusseault. The examiner explains the rejection on pages 2-3 of the final rejection as
follows:
Dusseault, specifically the bottle designated as 32, 33, and 34 in
Figs. 2-5[,] has the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design.
The fact that the bottle has one closed end does not alter the overall visual
appearance since a closed end on a container is functional in nature, the
end with the cap is open once the cap is removed, therefore this end is not
being discussed.
The visual appearance of the bottle of Dusseault has the same basic
We note that the size of the opening in the top of the extension as shown in appellant’s Figure2
2 does not correspond to the size of said opening as shown in Figure 3. This inconsistency is worthy of
correction.
The examiner specifically incorporates the statement of the rejection and response to argument3
sections of the final rejection into the answer. Answer, page 3.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007